Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:51:10.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Goes Around Comes Around: Unit Root Tests and Cointegration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

John T. Williams
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At one time, the lag time for the implementation of methods from economics and other disciplines in political science was quite long, reflecting the newness of political methodology as well as a lack of statistical training. The articles by Ostrom and Smith and by Durr (in this volume) represent a departure from this longstanding lag time associated with political methodology. These articles, as well as others (e.g., Beck 1992), are using the methodology of unit root econometrics and error correction models with much smaller lag time. The Ostrom and Smith article represents little lag time at all, as some of their results are using methods not as yet printed in econometrics journals!

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 4 , 1992, pp. 229 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1993 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barro, Robert J., and Gordon, David B. 1983. “A Positive Theory of Monetary Policy in a Natural Rate Model.” Journal of Political Economy 91: 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 1992. “Comparing Dynamic Specifications: The Case of Presidential Approval.” In Political Analysis 3, ed. Stimson, James A., 51–88. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Chrystal, K. Alec, and Peel, David A. 1986. “What Can Economics Learn from Political Science, and Vice Versa?” American Economics Review 76: 62–65.Google Scholar
Granger, Clive W.J., and Newbold, Paul. 1974. “Spurious Regressions in Econometrics.” Journal of Econometrics 2: 111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwiatkowski, Denis, Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, Peter, and Shin, Yongcheol. Forthcoming. “Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity against the Alternative of a Unit Root.” Journal of Econometrics.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. C. B. 1990. “To Criticize the Critics: An Objective Bayesian Analysis of Stochastic Trends.” Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 950, Yale University.Google Scholar
Sims, Christopher A. 1988. “Bayesian Skepticism on Unit Root Econometrics.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 12: 463–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, Christopher A., and Uhlig, Harald. 1992. “Understanding Unit Rooters: A Helicopter Tour.” Econometrica 59: 1591–99.Google Scholar
8. This is not to say unit roots do not create special problems. Rather, Sims (1988) argues that both flat-prior Bayesian theory and classical theory ignore these problems, namely, the treatment of initial conditions and nonnormality.Google Scholar